p.1 #1 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
The 180mm OS macro has gotten some incredible reviews. It is very high in price new, as well. Does anyone own either of these, or have anyone used either of these lenses?
Trying to decide if they would provide me something that my 105mmVR DOESN'T, besides extra FL. I shoot with the D800...
p.1 #3 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
-Better reach, more object distance at high magnification, better performance overall at long distances?
At very short distances (up to tight portrait distance) a good copy of the 105VR is very good indeed. The Sigmas don't lose as much at longer distance.
Have the 105VR, known good copy. Tried the 180OS, and it's truly stellar. Tried the 150OS, and for the things I would do with it the old 150 without stabilization was just as good.
p.1 #5 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
theSuede wrote:
Tried the 180OS, and it's truly stellar. Tried the 150OS, and for the things I would do with it the old 150 without stabilization was just as good.
How do the 150 and 180 compare optically?
Apr 03, 2013 at 04:17 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
Diglloyd is testing both those new Sigma lenses. And also comparing against Leica 180/2.8 APO & Voigtlander 180/4 APO
p.1 #8 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
carstenw wrote:
How do the 150 and 180 compare optically?
Fortunately (looking at the prices...) the 180 more than well justifies its' price tag. Yes, it's better - not an easy task to achieve, considering the 150 is very good.
It's almost as good as the 200F2.0VR at the same aperture at long distances, and of course a lot better at the 200mm's MFD. It's a LOT better than the 70-200VR2 at 180mm, though the 70-200 gets close in a very small central area of the image at F4.0-F8.0. Corners in the 70-200 are just mush compared to the Sigma, at all apertures below F16
p.1 #10 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
I will wait and see what Zeiss or Nikon has to offer in this respect in near future. Zeiss is working on longer teles and another macro and I suppose Nikon will come sooner or later with a replacement of their 200 micro.
I am not prepared to spend a huge amount of money on a lens (Sigma) that probably will depreciate substantially in a short period of time and where having a sample with proper AF is more or less a lottery. Even with their supposed better recent QC there are many people complaining about this with their recent lenses.
Optically the Sigma seems quite/very good, but the Leica 180/2.8 APO is sharper on infinity according to a test at Diglloyd. For nearby-pictures the Sigma appears to be a little sharper, but it has some focus shift which is quite annoying for precise macro work.
p.1 #11 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
I've got the 150mm OS. To be honest, I don't really use it for macro that much, more as just a general use telephoto prime. It's a very nice lens and handles well. I've always liked the fact that the collar is removable. I like to use it for portraits. AF speed is definitely not going to match what a 70-200 can do. My perception is that the AF is faster than the non-OS version, but if you don't care about that I think optically they're pretty similar and the non-OS lens is lighter and cheaper. On a purely aesthetic level, I always hated that crinkle finish on the old EX lenses. The new finish looks and feels a lot nicer.
I am intrigued by the 180mm but it'd have to be a lot better for the increased bulk – it weighs more than a 70-200/2.8. That said, a lens at that focal length and aperture could probably replace both the 150mm and 70-200 for me. I'll probably end up taking a pass for now, since I've put a bit of a freeze on my DSLR equipment to focus on mirrorless, but it looks like a really desirable lens.
p.1 #12 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
Let's do that Leica comparison "the other way around", shall we?
The Sigma is SHARPER at anything closer than infinity, has AF, has AE, has stabilization, has a factory guarantee, is better APO corrected for OOF LoCA, and it's cheaper - than the Leica 180 APO-Elmarit.
p.1 #13 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
theSuede wrote:
Let's do that Leica comparison "the other way around", shall we?
The Sigma is SHARPER at anything closer than infinity, has AF, has AE, has stabilization, has a factory guarantee, is better APO corrected for OOF LoCA, and it's cheaper - than the Leica 180 APO-Elmarit.
Ah, we have a believer.
Many tests confirm that it certainly is a very good lens (optically) and I really like the pictures that I have seen from it up to now. I am waiting some time for a macro in the 180, 200 range, but for me it won't be this Sigma. High cost (and depreciation), the still not optimal QC and weight are the main reasons. Besides that I prefer buying lenses that can last a lifetime and for me that only can be lenses without all the modern electronic stuff.
p.1 #14 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
Their problem, a long-standing own goal really, is that their latest offerings are priced into a market segment populated by makers with decades of earned reputation for build quality, optical excellence and respect among serious users.
Reservation and caution seem to be a prudent approach to many about buying a super complex - 19/14 configuration, stabilised, AF - lens that asks a user to take it on trust that the QC and incompabilities history is now truly past and buried.
The physical dimensions and weight - 204mm x 95mm, 1630 grams - and even the 86mm filter thread seem at odds with industry trends heading quickly in the other direction.
With Zeiss releasing a very good and very well priced 135mm f2 Sonnar shortly for a few hundred dollars more than this Sigma, we can expect CZ to do a 180mm version of equal quality for similar money.
Another factor: is macro that big these days that users will tolerate a giant tube like this to photograph a bee's appendage? Zeiss have forsaken true macro with the two MP releases. There might also be more to imaging than sharpness, sorry, that should read SHARPNESS.
p.1 #16 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
Philip, that seems like sort of a pessimistic take. If you're after a 180mm macro lens, then you probably know what your needs are. There isn't really anything modern and comparable for Nikon mount, at least. Plus, it is a large lens, but DSLR lenses seem to be getting larger and larger every day. Didn't Canon just go to 82mm threads on their 24-70?
The Zeiss 135mm zf.2 costs twice what the Sigma 150mm costs, for what benefit? And It's not really comparable to a 180mm macro lens, is it? Not to mention that the Sigma 180mm costs 25% less in the US, and you can expect that price to drop over time. Though I probably won't buy the 180mm because I'm just not personally that into macro, I think it's a rather astute niche for Sigma to establish for themselves.
Actually, it's the Zeiss 135mm that I find to be an odd duck. It's competing with one of Canon's best and most loved lenses at twice the price and without AF? Hmm. I think Zeiss are at their best when they offer something unique that makes losing AF worth the compromise, but their last few lenses – other than the 15mm – have failed that test for me.
p.1 #17 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
philip_pj wrote:
Another factor: is macro that big these days that users will tolerate a giant tube like this to photograph a bee's appendage? Zeiss have forsaken true macro with the two MP releases. There might also be more to imaging than sharpness, sorry, that should read SHARPNESS.
This Sigma 180 would fit nicely into insect macro photography. f/2.8 is there to ensure a bright viewfinder, but not a working aperture for most macros. This lens essentially can replace a Canon 200/2 and a 180/3.5 macro or a Nikon 200/2 and a 200/4 macro. The Canikon 200/2 shine not only because of the shallow DOF (the Sigma will compromise a bit), but also because they are so well-corrected with minimal CA (which the Sigma would fit in nicely). So in short, this Sigma filled in that niche of shallow DOF, bokehlicious long tele portrait and insect macro. There is no lens that can do both as well as this Sigma.
However, I'm with wiseguy. I'm going to stick with a plain MF lens. So I would rather spend the money on that Zeiss 135 APO. I hope that if Zeiss ever comes out with a 200ish lens, it would be f/2.
p.1 #18 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
wiseguy010 wrote:
Ah, we have a believer.
Many tests confirm that it certainly is a very good lens (optically) and I really like the pictures that I have seen from it up to now. I am waiting some time for a macro in the 180, 200 range, but for me it won't be this Sigma. High cost (and depreciation), the still not optimal QC and weight are the main reasons. Besides that I prefer buying lenses that can last a lifetime and for me that only can be lenses without all the modern electronic stuff.
If You want a lens that lasts a lifetime why do You even bother with depreciation (which on a side note is completely not true in terms of Sigma macro lenses)
I really don't get it, You either want/care about lens for the job that performs or want/care about value. Hint: value doesn't take pictures, camera+lens+photographer do.
As for the Sigma 150 vs 180. Both are friggin amazing, You need to ask Yourself a question, is the extra bit of reach and a bit better sharpness wide open worth it. You won't be doing much of a macro work @ 2.8 so the sharpness advantage here is irrelevant. 150mm handles CA better (no matter what aperture it just stays the same at practically non-existent level, but even tho 180mm shows more and more CA while You stop it down it never reaches levels noticeable in real life examples. Distortion-wise 180 is 0.2% and 150 is practically 0%. Coma practically 0 on both lenses. 180mm flares significantly worse than 150mm (which also flares). Both lenses have relatively slow AF... but 150 might be tad faster. Hope that helped.
p.1 #19 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
R3medy wrote:
As for the Sigma 150 vs 180. Both are friggin amazing, You need to ask Yourself a question, is the extra bit of reach and a bit better sharpness wide open worth it. You won't be doing much of a macro work @ 2.8 so the sharpness advantage here is irrelevant. 150mm handles CA better (no matter what aperture it just stays the same at practically non-existent level, but even tho 180mm shows more and more CA while You stop it down it never reaches levels noticeable in real life examples. Distortion-wise 180 is 0.2% and 150 is practically 0%. Coma practically 0 on both lenses. 180mm flares significantly worse than 150mm (which also flares). Both lenses have relatively slow AF... but 150 might be tad faster. Hope that helped....Show more →
Did you test these two yourself since you brought up some interesting point, especially regarding CA control? Admittedly, sharpness advantage at WO is not important for macro work, but as an all-rounder, the 180 would have the advantage here.
p.1 #20 · Newest Sigma 150mm OR 180mm/2.8 Macro. Any owners?
The original question was comparing the new Sigmas to the Nikkor 105VR. Since the thread owner compares three macro lenses, all of them AF with stabilization, I really think the (excellent, but manual and more expensive) 135/2 Zeiss and the (excellent, but manual and more expensive) Leica APO-Elmarit 180 are kind of out of the comparison.
Want to buy a Leica for the name and the collectible value (no depreciation, but unfortunately also very low usability) - just do it. At ~20m and closer it just isn't any better than the Sigma on any conceivable image quality point, and it never will be.
Want to buy a 135mm F2.0 manual lens? Well, the market is certainly there, and I'm sure the Zeiss is an excellent lens. I want one.
Neither do much good unless you have time to use LV magnification to focus when shooting at large apertures, or if you can accept losing at least 2/3 or 3/4 out of your shots (if you have a good manual focusing day). They're only critically sharp in the plane of best focus, and if that isn't exactly where you want it to be - all the optical excellence is wasted.
